At INFODAD, we rank everything we review with plus signs, on a scale from one (+) [disappointing] to four (++++) [definitely worth considering]. We mostly review (+++) or better items. Very rarely, we give an exceptional item a fifth plus. We are independent reviewers and, as parents, want to help families learn which books, music, and computer-related items we and our children love...or hate. INFODAD is a service of TransCentury Communications, Inc., Fort Myers, Florida, infodad@gmail.com.

July 17, 2014

(++++) TRAGEDY OF A LONG-GONE WORLD

They are saints now,
canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, but in their lifetimes they were
reviled, their fall celebrated, their ignominious deaths either unremarked or
deemed an occasion for joy. They were the last Romanovs, the final rulers of Imperial
Russia, the victims of vicious Bolshevik murder in the waning days of World War
I.

Although it proved not to be
“the war to end war,” World War I was the war that ended empires: at its
conclusion, the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were gone, and so was
Russia’s. The fall of Russia and its Romanov rulers was particularly dramatic:
the last czar, Nicholas II, had been the wealthiest monarch in the world, and
the holdings of the czars were so fabled, so extensive, so celebrated, that in
their operetta Patience, Gilbert and
Sullivan dealt with a matter of impossibility by comparison: “Get at the wealth
of the czar (if you can).”

But the end of the Romanovs
had been coming for quite some time before Nicholas was shot dead, along with his
entire family and their household servants, in July 1918. The assassination of
Alexander II in 1881 was a major precipitating factor. A reformist who
emancipated the serfs, abolished capital punishment and promoted local
self-government, Alexander was murdered by radical revolutionaries for whom his
reforms did not go nearly far enough or fast enough: he was killed by a bomb in
the fifth attempt on his life. This convinced his son, Alexander III, that
reforms would never satisfy extremists, and he cracked down on dissent – hard.
The result was a solidifying of opposition to his rule and to the czars in
general. Alexander’s son, Nicholas II, would reap the proverbial whirlwind:
lacking forcefulness and a hard edge, unable to contain the worker unrest that
manifested itself in major strikes in 1905, Nicholas vacillated, signing the
October Manifesto granting increased rights but then cracking down brutally on
protests in a wave of terror that resulted in more than 20,000 executions.

“Promises Made, and Promises
Broken,” reads the subhead of one part of one chapter in Candace Fleming’s The Family Romanov, and those five words
say a great deal about the entire story told here in simplified but
nevertheless highly detailed form. The last czar earned the name “Bloody
Nicholas” through the depredations of his secret police and soldiers. But his
story is more complicated than the name would suggest. Fleming delves into the
ins and outs of a long-ago time, and into family matters ranging from Nicholas’
son’s hemophilia to the curious relationship between the czar’s family and
self-proclaimed “holy man” Gregory Rasputin. The family tragedy – and it surely
was a tragedy on a family level, whatever one may think of the social and
political currents against which it played out – is at the heart of Fleming’s
book, but she tells it within the context of a world changing far too fast for
the old autocrats to keep up, a world where people such as Vladimir Ulyanov,
always known by his chosen name Lenin, would control the future as czarist days
receded rapidly into the past. Indeed, in some ways, the fall of the Romanovs
seems only a matter of time: the very first item in Fleming’s 32 pages of
photos and other visual material, a graphic showing the approximate breakdown
of Russia’s social classes at the start of the 20th century,
indicates that 1.5% of people were nobility or state officials, while 84% were
peasants. Surely it was only a matter of time before the vast, vast majority
rose up and demanded its rights in a nation from whose riches the lower classes
had always been excluded.

And perhaps the destruction
of the Romanovs was indeed inevitable, although the specific method of
cold-blooded murder of the entire family in the name of Communism remains
shocking even today. Fleming nevertheless manages to show the positives as well
as the many negatives of the last czar and his family. Nicholas even attains
something approaching nobility in his reaction to Lenin’s decision – for his
own self-preservation – to sign a peace treaty with Germany that gave up
Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Crimea: 32% of Russia’s
land, 54% of its factories and 89% of its coal mines. Nicholas may have been on
the wrong side of history; for all his religious piety (the basis of his and
his family’s eventual canonization), and he may never have had either the
sensitivity or the administrative skill to be an effective ruler, much less to
control a land as huge, sprawling and complex as Russia. But his successors
scarcely did better for the Russian population than Nicholas had. Lenin died in
1924 and was succeeded by the incredibly brutal and vicious mass murderer, Stalin,
whose brand of Communism “ruled by repression, fear, and iron-fisted control”
and lasted 67 years. The Romanovs, both for better and for worse, had ruled for
more than 300.